Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

I use the firewall to protect my entire enterprise network. 

I like the quality of this product, and it performs. It's the best solution in the IT business. 

I would improve the management. I need to view charts and traffic statistics, but the management console doesn't share that information with me.

I would also improve the integration with other solutions. 

I have been a partner of this solution for five years.

The stability of the solution is good. 

This is a scalable solution. 

The technical support is very good. We contact them for support with the solution or if we have problems in the entire network. I would rate the technical support as an eight out of ten. 

My IT team handled the setup and it was very easy because they have the needed skills. We use three people for deployment and maintenance: one engineer and two technicians. 

I would recommend that new users study the product. I think people should use it because it is very easy to understand.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. 

Palo Alto Networks Panorama has improved the way my company works, which is why my company uses it.

What I like about Palo Alto Networks Panorama is that it's stable and setting it up isn't complex.

My company's getting whatever it needs from Palo Alto Networks Panorama, but in the cloud, there's an issue with CPU management, and that's an area for improvement. Though the normal data traffic doesn't go through the management interface, whenever there's an increase in the throughput, CPU management becomes high. If you increase the load, CPU management spikes, and it's what needs to be taken care of in Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

I've been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for the past four years.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama has good stability. I didn't see any instability from it, though at times, the CPU goes high in terms of usage, and that's what you need to take care of.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a scalable solution.

Technical support for Palo Alto Networks Panorama, in my experience, was initially good, but now the wait time is longer. My company has a dedicated account manager, so it gets support, but in general, the response time is longer.

The initial setup for Palo Alto Networks Panorama was straightforward. I didn't see any complexity. It was a normal firewall configuration. I haven't done any new deployment of Palo Alto Networks Panorama, but in the cloud environment, it didn't take much time for me, and you can complete a setup within one to two hours.

We implemented Palo Alto Networks Panorama through a vendor team by Palo Alto, specifically for the on-premises deployment, to migrate from Check Point to Palo Alto Networks Panorama, but in the cloud environment, as it is a VM, we did it ourselves.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is deployed everywhere, particularly in the public cloud and on-premises as well.

My company is just a customer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama, but because it's a big company, it has a dedicated account manager in Palo Alto.

My company uses the solution extensively. There are more than six Panoramas. Forty to fifty firewalls are managed currently through Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

I'm rating Palo Alto Networks Panorama nine out of ten. It's a good solution. What would make my rating a ten is if the CPU management spike issue was addressed and if the delayed response of technical support was addressed as well. A few years ago, the response time from support was immediate, but now, there's a delay with the response, even though my company has a dedicated account manager from Palo Alto Networks Panorama, and this makes you think about a midsized company with no account manager in terms of how much time it gets a response from Palo Alto support.

We use Palo Alto firewalls, for our perimeter security. It is our perimeter security product, which we use as our perimeter security firewall. As a firewall should, protect us and our organization at the perimeter.

It's an excellent product. It's doing its job, and we like it. The ease of use is quite nice. Everything about the reporting and everything about Palo Alto Networks Panorama is good.

Everyone, I suppose, would like the price to be improved. Price is always a good thing to change.

There is always room for improvement in anything. But I couldn't really comment on that off the top of my head.

In terms of updates, I believe everything is in order. That is not an issue for me.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks Panorama for five months.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is 100 percent stable. We have it running in HA status, obviously, for failover, but It's extremely stable. There are no complaints.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is scalable.

We have a large organization. We are a retail company, with approximately 4000 users who are protected by this firewall.

I have never contacted technical support personally. We do outsource our support to another company. When there are issues, they are responsible for resolving them.

We use their product called, Cortex XDR.

We use an onboard, a custom CRM platform that we created in-house. At the moment, we do not use a commercially available one.

I have been with my current company for five months. And we were using checkpoints as our perimeter security when I first joined, and we moved to the Palo Alto Panorama platform. And it's a fantastic product; we love it. As an organization, it has been very well written.

I wasn't involved in the installation because, as I previously stated, I just started working for my current organization. 

I wasn't directly involved in the transition, but it went smoothly.

I couldn't comment on price as I am not really involved in the commercial side of the business.

I am not aware of the licensing fees.

I am aware of XSOAR, but we haven't had any dealing with it yet. We are on a journey to potentially onboard that within our environment. But, at this point, we don't have, the budget for it.

It's doing its job for us. Since we cut it out, from Checkpoint to Palo Alto, everything has improved noticeably. I recommend it.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine out of ten.

We use Palo Alto Networks Panorama to monitor and have centralized control.

The most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks Panorama are centralized management. We can manage all our firewalls.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama could improve by making the solution less expensive.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for one year.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a stable solution.

I have found Palo Alto Networks Panorama to be scalable and it is easy.

We have two engineers that use the solution.

I have previously used Fortinet FortiGate, but we found Palo Alto Networks Panorama had a lot more features and this is why we switched.

The initial setup of Palo Alto Networks Panorama was simple. The time of the implementation depends on the environment.

We used an integrator for the implementation of Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be lower.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama an eight out of ten.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama can be used for managing all your files at once. Its primary use case is that it's a centralized management system for firewalls. For example: we have a company with four different sites, and each one of those sites has two Palo Alto networks in there, so rather than do one integration, then replicate it four times, what we do is we plug it all into Palo Alto Networks Panorama and make the change once, and it pushes out to all the firewalls, regardless of where those are located.

What I find brilliant in Palo Alto Networks Panorama is that you can create variables. The template stack function of the system is also valuable. You can create one profile for several firewalls, and I find that really, really cool. If there's a file on the network that needs to have an address arrangement, you can just import it similar to how you do a CSV import. It's a solid product and it does what it's supposed to do.

The ease of use of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is an area for improvement, because it's not very easy to use. The downside with the system is that you need a lot of comprehension to understand what it is. There are also risks associated with making a change, e.g. you can accidentally break your network which knocks off the firewall, and then you can't get back on again. If you know what you're doing, e.g. if you're a specialist, then there won't be any problems, in general.

It's important to gain an understanding of Palo Alto Networks Panorama, or the concept, before you start. It works like Palo Alto, but it doesn't at the same time, because you have templates, and the templates have to be applied before your variables, and then those variables directly affect your objects. It's important to understand how it works. I wish they could make it easier, and a bit more intuitive, but if you're doing the training, and you're properly in the system, then it will make sense the way it's explained to you, otherwise, it'll be hard to make sense of it.

It could be difficult to get to the stage you want to be on with this system. It's similar to a different language, and it's so hard to just do it on your own, but if you are in the culture and you're speaking to other people, then it becomes easier because you're doing it. That's the learning curve right there, e.g. if you've never done it before, you'll sit and look around saying: "What is this? I don't understand." If you're doing the training, and you're more involved in the product, or even if you speak to specialists, they will be able to help you, then you start to learning it and what it can do.

I've been dealing with Palo Alto Networks Panorama for four years now.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is very, very scalable. The way the system works is that you have clustering, so you can have all these machines connect to each other in stacks. It's a completely scalable system.

Technical support for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is good. I'm giving them a score of four out of five.

The setup for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is quite difficult, because you're essentially building this one machine, then you have to create all the log ins, then once you've done that, you start registering your files, but you have to do an ingestion on them. You have to bring the file all in, and then it takes the config then puts the config back out again, but that config will then be a "protected config", so if I was logging onto that machine locally, I can't change that file.

The setup is quite easy just to build the machine, but to get it to work is quite difficult.

I've been dealing with version 10.0 of Palo Alto Networks Panorama. I'm a reseller of this solution.

One person could do the deployment and maintenance for Palo Alto Networks Panorama, but what we do in our office is: we have a buddy system. If there's a change that needs to be made, e.g. if someone does the work, someone verifies it, and then catches any problems there, because if you're managing several firewalls, one more change might break all of them. That's the risk that you're in.

My advice to others who are planning to implement Palo Alto Networks Panorama is to look at the use case, e.g. if you have two firewalls, or if you have several firewalls across the country, it's best to get a specialist in to help you deploy it. For a regular IT guy who works in a company managing the server, etc., it'll be such a hard learning curve to go through. Try and learn it yourself if you can, but if not, always defer to a specialist.

I'm rating Palo Alto Networks Panorama seven out of ten, just because it's quite difficult.

We have used this solution to design LLD, HLD and PLB queues as well as development queues. Once approved, we implement and configure drone and drone protections. We have also used this solution for App-IDs.

This solution is user-friendly. It is centrally managed and provides role optimization, without the need for additional tools. We also make use of URL filtering and App-IDs. 

We have experienced a few bugs which the team at Palo Alto don't have solutions for. 

In the next release, it would be good to have features which increase the processing power in clusters.

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution. 

The technical team are knowledgeable and have helped us solve some complex issues. However, there are some team members who are not very knowledgable and some issues take longer than a week to resolve. 

Neutral

The initial setup is easy and takes less than three hours. The setup time does depend on migration activity and how much configuration needs to be done, as that takes additional time. 

I have worked with FortiGate and Palo Alto. Both are quite similar but I have experienced more bugs in FortiGate compared to Palo Alto. Both products have the same functionality, although FortiGate does have more features. 

Palo Alto has rule optimizers, reporting and many other capabilities built in and so other products (such as FortiGate or Check Point) do not need to be used with this solution. This is what makes Pal Alto affordable compared to other solutions. 
Compared to other firewalls, this is the most reliable solution. 

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. 

My primary use of Panorama is as a management unit, including firewall and log management.

The most valuable feature is that the management unit is centralized, so you can manage different regions from one place.

An area for improvement would be the connectivity, which sometimes means logs can be slow to display.

Panorama's stability is very good.

This solution is scalable.

The technical support is very good.

The initial setup isn't very complex, it's user-friendly. The deployment time depends on your capacity planning - how many firewalls will be managed and how many logs or discs you require.

When implementing, make sure someone involved has a good technical understanding of the product and how it will work. I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is used to manage the Palo Alto firewalls.

We are attracted to Palo Alto because it is stable. It is very simple to use.

When they bring anything to the market, it is really well done.

There could be more integrations with third parties.

I have been dealing with Palo Alto for more than ten years, and have been selling Palo Alto Networks Panorama since it was first released.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama's stability has never been an issue for me. It's fantastic.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a scalable product.

I have not contacted technical support.

We haven't had any escalation issues, which means they're doing a good job.

We are also selling SentinelOne.

From Palo Alto, we sell everything from firewalls to endpoint security.

I was not involved with the setup.

Licensing fees are paid yearly.

We are in EDR. We don't sell any products or any information for threat intelligence.

If they have Palo Alto products, and multiple sites, it's definitely something they would need.

It is difficult to give it a ten because there is always room for development. I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine out of ten. 

We have a managed services offering, which we give to our clients where we can monitor the different database applications and environments on their behalf. We bundle a service between Palo Alto Panorama and Palo Alto BMCDs, as a set of security controls for them.

The telemetry visibility is really good as well as the automated workflows for creating policies. The overall solution is quite intuitive to use.

The solution could improve by having a true single pane of glass environment for unified management. At the present time, you still have to use three or four different solutions to bring everything together.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for approximately two years.

We have not had any major bugs. However, there have been unexpected restarts and a memory leak a while ago, but nothing that the vendor did not fix in a few days.

The solution is easy to scale.

We have approximately 50 people using the solution in my organization.

The support was able to help us with the issues we were having. They are very good.

The initial setup is somewhat straightforward, you most likely will need assistants.

You will need managed services or an IT professional to do the implementation.

The solution is expensive and could be cheaper.

When implementing Palo Alto Networks Panorama with solutions you might require professional services.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine out of ten.

I worked for a system integrator, and some of our clients  asked us to manage their firewalls. They have a large number of sites all around the world. One of them has got 25 sites, and the other one has got 13 sites. So, we deployed Panorama in our DataCenter, and we managed the gateway for our customers with Panorama.

The management and the deployment features are most valuable. We can easily deploy and manage the devices. We can do fast deployments without moving from our office and by just providing a short description to the end-user about how to install the physical device.
With Panorama you are able to manage a large number of firewall and to simplify change and incident management process .
With Panorama, firewall rules may be  managed mixing preconfigured templates (common on all/some firewalls) and more specific rules
From Panorama Dashboard you have an immediate view about the status of all the firewall deployed. 

It is quite hard to understand the platform. It is not easy and user-friendly. You need some experience and the proper technincal training  to use Panorama without risks.
It is very complex, and you must know exactly what to do.
The bigger problem is that Panorama Dashboard Logic is quite different than PanOS firewall Dashboard.
The second problem is that you dont have wizards or template .You need to build your enviroment from zero on your own incurring in possibile configuration or logic errors.

I would like to have a more user-friendly and simple to use product .
For istance FortiManager is comparatively much more easier  to use and understand.
Palo Alto Firewall too are Really easier to manage than Panorama. 

Panorama Logging and reporting features are quite good ( like PaloAlto Firewall) but not the best on the market ( for istance Checkpoint SmartEvent is still far better) 

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is quite stable based on my experience. I did not have any big issues regarding the operating system.

It is quite easy to scale with Panorama. It is more for a medium or big enterprise. To manage an environment from Panorama, you must have people with high skills. Its cost is not suitable for a couple of gateways only.

We have three levels of Palo Alto support. I also have email support in the Italian language. They provide very good support levels.

I did not install Panorama from scratch. Palo Alto Gateway is quite easy to deploy and has a decent setup.

In terms of maintenance, it doesn't require too much effort. We usually check the best practices from their website. We update the Panorama server according to the best practices and the compatibility with the gateway.

Panorama price is quite high (comparing with other Firewall management suites) 

We have used it in the past for logging and reporting, but now we have another third-party product to manage the logs.

I would recommend Panorama for managing a large-sized or medium-sized network. To manage a center with a lot of devices or cloud services, Panorama is useful. 

I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a seven out of 10.